Query of Atty Karen Buffe Digest

Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, Former Clerk of Court- Branch 81, Romblon, RomblonOn The Prohibition From Engaging In the Private Practice of Law FACTS: Atty. Buffe previously worked as Clerk of Court VI of the RTC, Branch 81 of Romblon, she resigned from her position effective February 1, 2008. Thereafter, she engaged in the private practice of law by appearing as private counsel in several cases before RTC Branch 81 of Romblon within 1 year after the effectivty of her resignation. RA 6713, “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees”, Section 7(b)(2) places a limitation on public officials and employees during their incumbency and those already separated from government employment for a period of one (1) year after separation, in engaging in the private practice of their profession. SECTION 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. – In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful: xxx (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. – Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not: xxx (2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions; or These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply. ISSUE: WON Atty. Buffe is guilty of professional misconduct. HELD: YES. She was fined in the amount of P10,000 and a stern warning that a repetition of the same violation and other acts of professional misconduct shall be dealt with more severely. The letter-query “Why an incumbent can engage in private practice assuming not in conflict with his official duties but a non-incumbent may not as is apparently prohibited under last par. of Sec 7” filed by Atty. Buffe and the petition for declaratory relief cannot cover her acts and did not serve as a mitigating circumstance for violating the abovementioned provision. It should be noted that she had already appeared before Branch 81 in at least 3 cases at the time she filed the letter-query. The terms of Section 7 (b)(2) of RA 6713 did not deter her in any way and her misgivings about the fairness of the law cannot excuse any resulting violation she committed.

Section 7 of RA 6713 generally provides for the prohibited acts and transactions of public officials and employees. Subsection (b)(2) prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of their profession during their incumbency. As an exception, a public official or employee can engage in the practice of his or her profession under the following conditions: 1. The private practice is authorized b the Constitution or by the law; 2. The practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his or her official functions. “The prohibition under Section 7 continues to apply for a period of 1 Year after the public official or employee’s resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, EXCEPT for the private practice of profession under subsection (b)(2), which can already be undertaken even within the 1 YEAR PROHIBTION PERIOD. As an exception to this exception, the 1 year prohibited period applies with respect to any matter before the office the public officer or employee used to work with”. Futhermore, no chance exists for lawyers in the Judiciary to practice their profession, as they are in fact expressly prohibited by Sec.5 Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel from doing so. Under both the general rule and the exceptions, Atty. Buffe cannot escape penalty. Said prohibitions are based on the principle that public office is a public trust; and serve to remove any impropriety which may occur in government transactions. Additional info: Outside employment may be allowed by the head of office provided it complies with all of the following requirements: (a) The outside employment is not with a person or entity that practices law before the courts or conducts business with the Judiciary; (b) The outside employment can be performed outside of normal working hours and is not incompatible with the performance of the court personnel’s duties and responsibilities; (c) That outside employment does not require the practice of law; Provided, however, that court personnel may render services as professor, lecturer, or resource person in law schools, review or continuing education centers or similar institutions; (d) The outside employment does not require or induce the court personnel to disclose confidential information acquired while performing officials duties; (e) The outside employment shall not be with the legislative or executive branch of government, unless specifically authorized by the Supreme Court. Where a conflict of interest exists, may reasonably appear to exist, or where the outside employment reflects adversely on the integrity of the Judiciary, the court personnel shall not accept outside employment.